Wakilii

Uganda Electricity Board v G.w. Musoke (Civil Suit No. 241A 89)

High Court · [1995] UGHC 93 · 1995 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for stay of execution pending determination of appeal in Supreme Court
Decision
Stay of execution granted subject to conditions

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court granted a stay of execution pending determination of the appeal, holding that it has inherent jurisdiction under s.101 of the Civil Procedure Act to stay its own orders pending appeal to the Supreme Court. Where the appeal concerns quantum of damages awarded to multiple beneficiaries including minors of uncertain financial means, and recovery may be difficult if the appeal succeeds, the court should preserve the status quo to prevent the appeal from being rendered nugatory. The stay was granted on condition that the appeal be properly filed within 60 days.

Outcome

Stay of execution granted subject to conditions

Facts

The respondent obtained an exparte judgment on 24 April 1992 against the appellant in Civil Suit No. 241A/89 for damages totalling Shs 12,690,000 with interest arising from the electrocution death of his 12-year-old son by unattended electric wires belonging to the appellant. The appellant had not entered appearance or filed defence, and an interlocutory judgment was entered on 25 May 1989. The appellant's application to set aside the exparte judgment was dismissed for non-attendance and lack of merit. The appellant was granted leave to file notice of appeal out of time and then applied for stay of execution pending determination of the appeal, arguing that the quantum of damages was excessive and that recovery would be difficult if the appeal succeeded, as five of the eight beneficiaries were minors aged 6 to 17 years whose financial status was uncertain.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should grant a stay of execution of the exparte judgment pending determination of the appeal in the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the application for stay of execution was brought without unreasonable delay.
  3. Whether the applicant would suffer substantial loss if the stay was not granted.
  4. Whether the application was properly brought under s.101 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Orders

  • Stay of execution of the decree dated 24 April 1992 granted pending determination of the appeal in the Supreme Court.
  • The defendant's appeal must be properly filed in the Supreme Court within 60 days from 13 May 1993.
  • Failure to comply with the filing condition will automatically discharge the stay order.
  • If the filing condition is complied with, the stay of execution will continue in force pending the determination, discontinuance or withdrawal of the appeal.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court — Application Pending Appeal to Supreme Court
The High Court has inherent jurisdiction under s.101 of the Civil Procedure Act to stay its own orders pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, notwithstanding the absence of express provision in the Civil Procedure Rules for stay of execution in respect of appeals to the Supreme Court.
Civil Procedure — Right of Appeal — Exparte Judgments — s.69(1) Civil Procedure Act
An appeal may lie from an original decree passed exparte under s.69(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, notwithstanding that an application to set aside the exparte decree was dismissed by the High Court.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Grounds — Risk of Irrecoverability — Minors as Decree Holders
Where an appeal concerns quantum of damages awarded to multiple beneficiaries including minors of uncertain financial means, and the appeal raises a substantial question about excessive awards, a stay of execution should be granted to preserve the status quo and prevent difficulty in recovering money if the appeal succeeds, even though the decree holder is thereby inconvenienced.
Civil Procedure — Stay of Execution — Conditions — Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Rules
Before granting a stay of execution pending appeal, the court must satisfy itself that unless the order is made substantial loss may result to the applicant, that the application has been made without unreasonable delay, and that security has been or will be given for due performance of the decree as may ultimately be binding.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (9)

  • Joanita Kaggwa v O.A. Kawalya-Kaggwa (1972) 1 ULR 129
  • Ujagar Singh v Runda Coffee Estates Ltd (1966) EA 263
  • Mugenyi & Co. Advocates v National Insurance Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1984)
  • Francis Nansica Micah v Nuwa Walakira (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1990)
  • Lawrance Musitwa Kyazze v Eunice Busingye (Civil Application No. 18 of 1990)
  • Joseph Owoko v Edward Mugalu (1979) HCB 332
  • Mrs. Beatrice Desouza vs. S.H. Sachedias Civil Suit No. 171/90
  • Kalula vs. B.K. Mukalo Civil Appeal 102/58 (Unreported)
  • Walfee Uganda Ltd, vs. Ramji & Anor Civil Suit No. 534/58

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Uganda Electricity Board v G.w. Musoke (Civil Suit No. 241A_89) [1995] UGHC 93 (3 May 1995)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.